Tuesday 1, 2, 3: Raiders “host” in London in 2014, Shaw vs. Sarkisian, the A’s on the cusp of the ALCS

1–Al Davis would’ve never, ever, ever have given up a home date for an international game.

I understand the reasons why the Raiders just agreed to do exactly that next season–along with Atlanta and Jacksonville, the Raiders will “host” a game in London in 2014, the NFL just announced, which means all three teams will have only 7 true home games in 2014.

The NFL usually guarantees the “home” teams the equivalent of the money from a regular home sellout, so teams (like the Raiders) that aren’t sure they actually can get sellouts are more likely to accept the cash guarantee and take the home designation in London.

Therefore, the teams that usually lose the dates are the weaker teams, or at least the ones with the weakest ticket bases, and giving up the home game further weakens the base and the cycle goes on. You don’t want to be in that cycle, but sometimes the cash is the cash.

Understandable.

Advertisement

Al–even in the worst ticket-selling days of Raiders history in Oakland–would’ve never given up a home date for a cash guarantee, because to Al winning the game was always paramount and nothing else was close.

And it’s always better and easier to do that on home turf, not flying thousands of miles to play in a soccer stadium just to make sure the NFL’s international branding is sufficient.

I would presume Al Davis knew that even beyond the factors involving one game, losing a home game and adding immense extra travel in the middle of an already taxing season would put a toll on his team that probably could be measured in extra losses.

(And Al already knew and was incredibly proud of the fact that the Raiders were an international brand all themselves, wherever they played.)

The Raiders didn’t play well at all in Al’s final years, but it would’ve been worse if he had agreed to give up a home date in any one of them, which the NFL knew better than to even ask.

I’ve followed this closely since 2010, when the 49ers gave up a home date to “host” in London and Jed York swore to me that there was no proof that giving up a home date could hurt a team’s chances–and he implied that it actually could help.

That was provably wrong then… and now.

The 49ers went to London and beat Denver that year, but went 6-10 in Mike Singletary’s last season (of course if the trip helped lead to his firing, you could argue that it helped the 49ers, I realize) and that was just more facts pumped into the pattern.
In 2011, Tampa Bay was the “host” in London and finished the season 4-12.

Add in St. Louis’ 7-8-1 record last season, while “hosting” a game in London, and here’s the stark record of teams that gave up a home date for an international game in the season they did it:

–Teams that give up a home date for an international game have gone on to post a combined 34-72-1 record in those seasons.

(Hey, good luck to Minnesota and Jacksonville, the two London “hosts” this year, and their coaching staffs this year!)

Advertisement

It is, as I’ve always pointed out, partly self-fulfilling, because the teams that accept losing a home date are traditionally the weaker
teams–you never see Dallas, the NY Giants, Seattle, Washington or New England even asked to give up a home date.

You do see stronger teams go to London as ROAD teams, but that’s a different case:

-It’s a road game, so you’re getting on a plane, anyway, just traveling to Europe, instead, and you still have all 8 home dates.

Powerful owners feel like they’re doing their service to the league by taking a road trip to London, NOT by surrendering a home date.

(New England has been the road team in London twice, the NY Giants once, the 49ers are this year.

(The 49ers accepted the designed “host” role in 2010, partly because John York was head of the NFL International Committee back
then and needed to take one for the league and probably partly because the 49ers didn’t know any better back then. You think Jim Harbaugh would sign off on losing a home game ever? Zero chance. Same situation/approach as Al D, I’m sure.)

No, it’s the weaker teams take the deal to lose a date and take the cash. Then they find their seasons destabilized by having to take the long extra trip in the middle of a season.

Things unravel, players get fatigued, they don’t have that one more home game that could turn the tide.

The Rams actually were a huge over-performer against this model by going 7-8-1, but some of that is explained by the arrival of Jeff Fisher–a strong first-year coach who A) wasn’t going to let things get destabilized and B) wasn’t going to get fired no matter what, so an exhausted locker room couldn’t/wouldn’t turn on him.

By the way, one of the first things Fisher did in St. Louis was get the Rams out of an agreement to host in London for two more years. Jeff is no dummy.

2–Very interesting back-and-forth between Washington’s Steve Sarkisian and Stanford’s David Shaw on Saturday night and continuing into today.

Sarkisian accused Stanford of faking injuries on defense to slow down Washington’s uptempo attack and Shaw fired back by saying the charge was completely off-base, that it was unprofessional of Sarkisian to make it and that you didn’t see Stanford complaining about anything after it lost to Washington last year.

Whew, pretty heated stuff.
As others have pointed out, you can’t help but notice echoes of another similarly located coaching rivalry: Jim Harbaugh vs. Pete Carroll.
Of course Shaw was on Harbaugh’s staff at Stanford and Sarkisian was on Carroll’s staff at USC when the Harbaugh-Carroll thing was just starting (and at it’s hottest).

It’s always entertaining when two good, ultra-competitive coaches–and good teams–have a bit of a personal rivalry going. Certainly makes things interesting, for us and, I’d imagine, for them, too.

Shaw and Sarkisian don’t seem like overly combative guys, but every good coach has some inner-Harbaugh in him, and I think both men realize that neither wants to be seen backing down from anything.

In fact, both men want to be seen as provoking some of this. It’s not a bad thing. Players rally around it, so do fan bases, as long as it doesn’t get too nutty.

Harbaugh vs. Carroll is about the best rivalry going in football right now and both men know it. So why not some Shaw vs. Sarkisian, with both programs running along at full-throttle?

Makes the next game very interesting. And the next one, and the next one, and maybe the next several will occur in the NFL, like another rivalry we’ve followed.

But can I be the sane person here and point out that it’s likely both men have a point in this case?

-It’s possible and not illegal for defensive coaches to suggest to their players that, against an offense determined to take advantage of any defensive lull, if they are slightly dinged up they should fall to the ground (and stop play and slow down the offense);

-And it’s possible Shayne Skov and a few other Cardinal defenders WERE hurt when they stopped play vs. Washington, just not enough to keep them out for very long after the mandatory 1 play rest;

-Against a normal-paced offense, dinged up defensive players probably have 15 to 20 seconds to decide if they should come off the field or not; against a speed-tempo team, they probably have 3-5 seconds, so if you’re encouraged to lean towards stopping play if it’s a close call, that’s understandable in a 3-5-second window;

-That’s not cheating; it’s a matter of degrees;

-It is logical for the offensive coaches to be upset by the strategy, because it is borderline unethical (depending on the extent of the injury or the level of acting involved in the falling to the ground or the amount of times players do actually fall to the ground to stop play);

-Sarkisian saw Skov and others drop down, stop play, and then come back after a few plays, and again, it’s understandable that he didn’t like that, especially with Washington on the move and Stanford’s D in retreat for much of the game;

-Again, it’s a matter of degrees;

-It is extremely logical that the coach of the defensive players would not be happy if his team is accused of cheating if indeed his staff is only making sure his players take the time allowed to them to decide if they’re hurt;

-It’s not cheating and it’s not illogical and it’s not wrong. It’s just competitive nature, and it’s a gray area, for both sides, admittedly, but gray areas are hard to debate coolly.

Sorry if that all sounds too logical. This is fun no matter what.

3–The A’s could clinch the ALDS today in Game 4 at Detroit, and interesting news from the pre-game when Bob Melvin revealed that Game 3 starter Jarrod Parker appears to be having some arm fatigue.

Don’t know how that’ll play out if the A’s advance to the ALCS, though the A’s do have A.J. Griffin, if he gets through his own soreness, Tommy Milone and Brett Anderson as other options.

BY THE WAY, I’m taking the rest of the day off. So, even if the A’s clinch, there will be no more posts on this blog today.

This was pre-planned and if you want to accuse me of anti-A’s bias (or even faking an injury) because of it, you are free to do so, win or lose.